2.0T Ats Vs Cts 3.6 2013

This is kind of bias posting this on the Ats Forum, but in a zero to 60 race who would win ?? And in overall opinion which is the better car pound for pound ?? I miss my Cts so much I might try to switch out of my lease to the last year of the CTS with f**kin buttons inside ...

This is kind of bias posting this on the Ats Forum, but in a zero to 60 race who would win ?? And in overall opinion which is the better car pound for pound ?? I miss my Cts so much I might try to switch out of my lease to the last year of the CTS with f**kin buttons inside ...

I test drove a 2.0T performance ATs. I believe 0-60 is comparable with a CTS with the 3.6L. If the CTS has the 3.0 I believe the ATS will be quicker.

Which is a better car becomes subjective. The ATS is newer, interior materials in the ATS are upgraded. The ATS is lighter and has upgraded technology, but it seems like you aren't happy with that given your desire for real buttons. The CTS is bigger, but the ATS is lighter.

Re: 2.0T Ats Vs Cts 3.6 2013

Originally Posted by JoeyCts

This is kind of bias posting this on the Ats Forum, but in a zero to 60 race who would win ?? And in overall opinion which is the better car pound for pound ?? I miss my Cts so much I might try to switch out of my lease to the last year of the CTS with f**kin buttons inside ...

Pound for pound, the ATS has the CTS beat, in every aspect.

There is nothing the CTS does better than the ATS, except for offering more size.

This is coming from someone that owned a CTS-V.

The question you should ask yourself is if you're comfortable in a compact sedan. From a shear quality of car aspect, there is little comparison here, this is a clean sheet brand new vehicle compared to a 5 year old model at the end of it's life.

As for CUE, after using it for a week so far, I have no complaints, and to be honest a lot of the critiques seem unfounded, or maybe because they're compared directly with 'button' infotainment systems instead of how you adapt quickly to it after a few days of ownership. That's personal preference. I've been around touch screens for years already, so it's nothing new to me.

Ultimately, basing a 40K purchase down to infotainment is a ridiculous notion I've yet to understand. I don't want to sound harsh, but if technology is what is of interest to you, there are much cheaper alternatives to get your fix.

I agree in what is being said ... But I also feel next year CTS might be out of my price league .. From my understand ... The Standard 2014 CTS will come with the 2.0T which I have with the ATS and the upgrade CTS will come with the same 3.6 which they offer now .. I feel the 2.0T will not have enough power for the CTS .. Right now you can get a really good deal on a 3.6 CTS which will be the same engine as the 2014 in essence ..

Re: 2.0T Ats Vs Cts 3.6 2013

Looked at both cars-side by side. Was trading in my 2008 CTS which was the best car I ever owned. But sitting in the 2013 CTS, I felt like I was sitting in my old car. Nothing had changed except for the backup camera in the rear view mirror. In fact, the CTS with the same trim level was $ 700 cheaper. Was tempted to go with the CTS, but really wanted a smaller car, 5 year old vs new technology, my wife wanted the IPad, and everyone wants to be excited about driving a new car and buying one that looked almost the same as the one I was trading in just didn't do it for me.

I had a 3.6 luxury collection for a rental when they were putting a new rear end in my CTS V. Loved the ATS, but hated the 3.6. It sounded like someone dragging a chain saw chain over a log really fast. Since I've had turbo and supercharged cars before, 87 Grand National (new) and a CTS V the turbo was the way to go. You have huge potential out of turbos, because there are more variables to work with. Plus the torque curve on a turbo is much flatter than a naturally aspirated engine and usually peaks lower as well. Appearantly, for about 500 bucks you can mod the car with just a tune and get another 30-40 HP out of the 2.0.

Re: 2.0T Ats Vs Cts 3.6 2013

Not sure if you're leasing or buying, but one thing to consider is that maybe you have this car for 3-5 years, you will then have a car that is 2 body styles old and you simply won't have the same resell since there are a blue million CTSes out there and the design language of the new ATS will carry it at least 5 years.

That said, the ATS is a better car, the new CTS is going to be same CUE situation and 6k more expensive...I know you're talking about the old CTS but just throwing that out there.

I also understand what you mean about the buttons, not because I have the same issue but because when I spend x amount on a car I want it to be exactly what I want and if there's a huge black eye on the deal it sours it. I think if you looked at any other car (c350, is350 (the new one) or the bmw) you will probably hate all the infotainment systems, and the CUE I have had no problems at all with although I admit it could be more peppy, but definitely not bad.

Re: 2.0T Ats Vs Cts 3.6 2013

There is nothing the CTS does better than the ATS, except for offering more size.

This is coming from someone that owned a CTS-V.

The question you should ask yourself is if you're comfortable in a compact sedan. From a shear quality of car aspect, there is little comparison here, this is a clean sheet brand new vehicle compared to a 5 year old model at the end of it's life.

As for CUE, after using it for a week so far, I have no complaints, and to be honest a lot of the critiques seem unfounded, or maybe because they're compared directly with 'button' infotainment systems instead of how you adapt quickly to it after a few days of ownership. That's personal preference. I've been around touch screens for years already, so it's nothing new to me.

Ultimately, basing a 40K purchase down to infotainment is a ridiculous notion I've yet to understand. I don't want to sound harsh, but if technology is what is of interest to you, there are much cheaper alternatives to get your fix.

Very well said! Last year I test drove a CTS and I wasn't sold! This year I test drove an ATS 2.0L Turbo and two hours later I left the dealership in my new ATS! It was a spontaneous decision!
Other than size, ATS is better in every aspect. And I am single guy and as a result don't care about rear seats or trunk space. And not only that, I think the rear seats in my ATS are actually very usable. I can sit there and I have enough head and leg room.

And I have no problem with CUE system! It is actually very intuitive too. I have NOT read CUE's manual yet, but I have been able to use CUE with no problem!

AND the 2013 CTS is going to be the old model very soon! Sure enough, you may get a good deal because of that. But that means your brand new car will be the old model.

If its any help (doubt it), I raced a 2012 CTS 3.6L Performance Sedan and a 2013 CTS 3.6L Premium Coupe and blew both of them out with my ATS 3.6L Premium. It really wasn't much of a race...

That's a no-brainer. The horsepower numbers between the 3.6 in the two cars is almost the same (318 in the CTS and 321 in the ATS) and I think the torque is almost identical. With that said, an ATS with the 3.6L will blow the doors off of the CTS because of the significant weight advantages the ATS has. Whereas a CTS has a 0-60 at around 6.1 seconds an ATS 3.6 is in the mid 5s. The 0-60 is more comparable between the CTS 3.6 and the ATS 2.0T, but again the ATS will feel more nimble because of the lighter chassis.

Re: 2.0T Ats Vs Cts 3.6 2013

I would love to do some pulls against an ATS 3.6.
I'm in a tuned 2.0T.

Toronto area.

Pm if interested.

Originally Posted by donavo

I second this. I'm in LA area. Stock 2.0 pulls also wouldn't be bad to see how much of a difference the tune makes.

If either of you are in the Metro Detroit area, I'm down. I have a tuned 3.6L, so I'll race you guys stock, then I'll flip it in sport mode and we'll see what happens.

Originally Posted by gohawks63

That's a no-brainer. The horsepower numbers between the 3.6 in the two cars is almost the same (318 in the CTS and 321 in the ATS) and I think the torque is almost identical. With that said, an ATS with the 3.6L will blow the doors off of the CTS because of the significant weight advantages the ATS has. Whereas a CTS has a 0-60 at around 6.1 seconds an ATS 3.6 is in the mid 5s. The 0-60 is more comparable between the CTS 3.6 and the ATS 2.0T, but again the ATS will feel more nimble because of the lighter chassis.

Yeah... I enjoyed the race though...

When I was stock, I beat my cousin's 2013 Charger R/T Road and Track though. I had him by a little bit and kept walking him at 75 MPH. I did lose to my other cousin's modded TrailBlazer SS though, but he has an aggressive tune, CAI, and exhaust. That said, it was a really close race. I was at his rear fender all the way.

Re: 2.0T Ats Vs Cts 3.6 2013

If either of you are in the Metro Detroit area, I'm down. I have a tuned 3.6L, so I'll race you guys stock, then I'll flip it in sport mode and we'll see what happens.

Yeah... I enjoyed the race though...

When I was stock, I beat my cousin's 2013 Charger R/T Road and Track though. I had him by a little bit and kept walking him at 75 MPH. I did lose to my other cousin's modded TrailBlazer SS though, but he has an aggressive tune, CAI, and exhaust. That said, it was a really close race. I was at his rear fender all the way.

Re: 2.0T Ats Vs Cts 3.6 2013

Originally Posted by JoeyCts

This is kind of bias posting this on the Ats Forum, but in a zero to 60 race who would win ?? And in overall opinion which is the better car pound for pound ?? I miss my Cts so much I might try to switch out of my lease to the last year of the CTS with f**kin buttons inside ...

ATS: 0-to-60 mph time of 5.7 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 14.1 seconds at 101.6 mph. That's actually a bit slower than Cadillac predicted. It said the V-6 should do a 5.4 to 60 and 14 flat in the quarter

CTS: 2014 model gets same 3.6L tuning as the ATS (321hp). It also gets a 8-speed automatic transmission and it is 200lbs less than the comparable BMW 5-series, putting it on an estimated curb weight of around 3,700lbs (for the 3.6L), or about 300lbs over the ATS (almost 10% more curbweight).

So it comes down to weight versus transmission. A 2014 ATS should also have the same 8-speed transmission, so it would even out. A 2013 ATS has the 6-speed which could affect 0-60 times more than quarter mile times.

I would still bet on the ATS - lesser weight (with same hp) is always a better way to go. Imagine the CTS as if you had an ATS with a 300lb guy sitting in the passenger seat at all times ...